It can sometimes be easy to forget that a principled opposition to marriage equality can exist. Mostly because we very seldom see one.

Usually what is presented in the cause of “protecting marriage” is old fashioned anti-gay animus dressed up as protecting the children or religious liberty of wedding florists or some such. But scratch the surface and it becomes clear that the real motivation is opposing “the evil homosexual agenda”. And while anti-gay activists may claim that they support civil unions (or whatever the least level of support they can claim without alienating a state), they don’t. It’s just a lie to make their anti-gay activism more palatable.

But there are a few – a small handful – who come to their opposition to marriage equality by honest means and genuinely believe that it is in the best interest of society to limit marriage to heterosexuals. One such person is David Blankenhorn. If that name sounds familiar, it’s because Blankenhorn was the primary witness in favor of the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in the federal lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Blankenhorn agreed with the plaintiffs that marriage would be good for gay couples. And, as do most liberal Democrats, he supports gay rights. However, his interest is focused on trying to encourage heterosexual families to remain intact (a laudable goal) and that fathers step up to their responsibilities (another laudable goal) and he believes that same-sex marriage works contrary to those goals (a position that I find wrongheaded).

David Blankenhorn is wrong. The Perry trial was basically an examination of the evidence and it found that David is wrong. And in addition to being wrong on the issue, Blankenhorn assumes the risk of damaging people whom he otherwise likes to advance a position for which he has no empirical evidence in support. Nevertheless, he simply is not in the same category as Brian Brown or Michael Heath.

David’s reputation suffered after the Perry trial. A good many people assumed that he has the same attitudes, biases and prejudices as, well, everyone else on that side of the debate. Some people found his testimony unforgivable and denounced him. I’m certain that it hasn’t been pleasant.

So perhaps that played some part in the editorial he released today with associate Elizabeth Marquardt opposing North Carolina’s constitutional amendment to ban any recognition of same sex couples.

The proposed amendment states that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” That’s a big mouthful, and it goes well beyond the issue of same-sex marriage.

For one thing, it means that North Carolina could not, now or ever, take any step or devise any policy to extend legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. No domestic partnership laws. No civil unions. Nothing.

That’s mighty cold. If you disdain gay and lesbian persons, and don’t care whether they and their families remain permanently outside of the protection of our laws, such a policy might be your cup of tea. But it’s not our view, and we doubt that it’s the view of most North Carolinians.

Much as I agree that Blankenhorn is one of the most moderate “traditional marriage” advocates, I’m afraid I have some reservations about his bona fides. I remember reading some while back that, while he claims to be a liberal Democrat, his organization, the Institute for American values, received the bulk of its funding from conservative donors (here’s the post at Salon from 2008: http://www.salon.com/2008/10/02/blankenhorn/). I also caught him in an outright fabrication in his claim that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child “specifically guarantees” children the right to be cared for by their biological parents — when, in fact, there is no such thing in the Convention, and the Convention quite specifically recognizes the validity of adoptive families and single-parent families.

It’s nice to see that Blankenhorn has stood up against one of the more outrageous anti-gay amendments floating around, but I’m not ready to give him a pass. He’s been too dishonest in the past.

My life as a gay man, and my rights as a gay American citizen are not up for debate. My full participation in society is not to be meted out in degrees or percents or shades of the same participation that straights take as their own without limits or questions.

So Blankenhorn’s opposition is more nuanced than most; he opposes THIS ban on my participation because, down the road, he will support a different ban on it — bans for which, of course, “he has no empirical evidence for support.”

I’ll give him credit for being half way there but he’s still WAY on the wrong side of right and on the wrong side of history. He’ll be remembered alongside the kind people who didn’t want black people to vote or drink from the same waterfountain instead of with the KKK and George Wallace. I would remind people that it was the kind, sweet racists (like my parents and many in my family) that were the REAL power behind Jim Crow and why it lasted so long, NOT the extremists. So that’s the company he keeps. Not something to be proud of.

It seems to me that Blankenhornâ€™s views on gay marriage differ from Brownâ€™s in degree, but not in kind. Both believe that if gays can marry, marriage will lose its appeal for heterosexuals,* and the world as we know it will come to an end. Blankenhorn believes that will happen with a whimper, Brown believes it will happen with a bang. Hence the difference in their rhetoric, and in their positions on other forms of legal recognition for gays.

*More specifically, they seem to think that if a woman can marry a woman, marrying a woman wonâ€™t seem like a very manly thing to do anymore, and all across America, men will flee their adult responsibilities as husbands and fathers by moving back into their motherâ€™s basements, playing World of Warcraft all day, and, in spare moments, begetting dozens of children out of wedlock.

This is just a career move for Blankenhorn and Marquardt. They bet on the wrong horse when they decided to crusade against same-sex marriage. Now, they realize that their “brand” has been damaged, especially after Blankenhorn’s credentials as an “expert” were shredded in the Prop 8 trial. He has never been able to give a logical rationale for his opposition to same-sex marriage other than the remote possibility that somehow, some unspecified way it will damage the institution of marriage. In any case, I agree with Claude Summers at glbtq.com who says that this editorial is nothing to get excited about, after all the reason he opposes Amendment One is that it harms the “marriage” movement, which he wants to be more effective so that it can continue to deprive us of our rights. (And though Blankenhorn and Marquardt oppose Amendment One because it prohibits not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions, they specifically declare that they are NOT calling for civil unions in North Carolina.) No principle there.

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.